Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8

Category:Lithuanian resistance partisans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary subcategory. The article is Lithuanian partisans and other similar categories do not distinguish resistance partisans. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Czech ice hockey clubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 16#Czech_ice_hockey_clubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories contain the players of the same clubs. Proposing to merge to the category with the club's current name. Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club changes their titular sponsor very often. Proposing to rename to neutral name to avoid CFR nominations each year.--Darwinek (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am split on the first 3 because its fairly standard that we have categories for each name a team has gone through for player categories as it is inaccurate to state a player played for a team with a different name than the one they actually played on. In sports the teams actual name matters. I do however agree with the last one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky. Czech Extraliga teams very often change their official name according to their main sponsor. This way you have easily many players who, technically speaking, were playing for a team with, say, 4 different names, although it is still the same club. - Darwinek (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is why I am a bit split on the situation. Some teams still have non-sponsor generic names that could be used I like the one you propose. Not sure if that is the case for the others. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of peerages

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no admin action required (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is currently in Lists of British people but includes French, Portuguese etc, so I suggest a split to a new sub-category. The proposed name seems the best fit with the contents, rather than e.g. United Kingdom, but other editors may have better suggestions. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Al-Mokawloon al-Arab players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to match head article
El Mokawloon SC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The club's name on Wikipedia is "El Mokawloon SC", so this category should be named the same. Ben5218 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in
talk) 10:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dental colleges in delhi ncr

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete
WP:G6. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a redirect to a category which was deleted under
C1. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trump associates associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Counting heads, the delete !voters have only a narrow lead ... but of course
WP:OCASSOC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
PS I have made a list of the category's contents before deletion, at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8#Category:Trump_associates_associated_with_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the people listed have been charged with being associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. And per
WP:RECENTISM (see below). Coldcreation (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is not Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, nor is it a question of criminal charge, it is the notion that just being associated with Russians implies interference in the 2016 United States elections. In fact, to date, no evidence has surfaced showing the individuals in this category attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections (or collude with Russians to influence the election). This category blurs the distinction between Russian meddling in the election, and political or business dealings (whether dubious in nature or not) with Russia. To be clear: No Trump associates have been associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No Trump associates have been associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" That's just not true - maybe they haven't been associated by sources you trust, but the MSM is good enough for Wikipedia sourcing. —swpbT go beyond 19:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Swpb: What source do you have that states the people listed in this category were associated with Russians to interfere with the 2016 election? Coldcreation (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea who is under investigation for colluding with Russians to interfere in the 2016 elections. Coldcreation (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment @JFG: why on earth were you trying to unilaterally move the category while a consensus-forming discussion is underway about its fate? I am pleased to see that your move has been reverted, but surprised at your action – it would have made this discussion pointless.
If you think the category should be renamed, then propose that here in this discussion, and see if there is a consensus for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor JFG: That's not a "more neutral" title, it's an inaccurate title. The category is not for people who are being investigated, it is exactly what it says - people who have been associated - meaning in media accounts, not just in what the special prosecutor's office has divulged. —swpbT go beyond 19:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at the wording, it's hard at this stage to be as clean lined as the titles proposed suggest; especially with BLP's. The most one could say is that some people are associated with the investigation, but that's rather lame and non-defining (the poor guy/gal who types up handwritten notes of meeting is "associated"). For those who've pleaded guilty to something, you could have a category of people convicted of crimes brought by the investigation, but whose a target, whose a witness, and what leverage someone may have on whom is likely more speculative than factual at this stage and to a great extent non-defining (I don't think being interviewed in an investigation is defining for any one). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per swpb, although willing to explore alternative names for the category. Not convinced that JFG's proposal is an improvement per comments above. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Category:Trump associates implicated in the Russian investigation"... or Special Counsel investigation, would be better. This is fair in that there is no implication they interfered in the election or colluded with Russians to do so. This is what is known, and this is what is reported in the media. Coldcreation (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a case of
    WP:RECENTISM. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
...and
WP:OCASSOC. Coldcreation (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television shows by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Daybeers (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And more
*Category:LGBT-related television shows by country to Category:LGBT-related television programs by country
Nominator's rationale: This is a request to overturn and reverse the renaming resulting from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programs by country. A bit of background: I simultaneously started two related CfDs back then, the other being ...#Category:Television programming by language. My expectation was that similar consensuses would lead to a harmonisation of the category names. However, the Television programs by country discussion was closed as a rename to Television shows by country after two supports, while the Television programming by language discussion continued on for months longer, and saw clearer consensus in favour of programs/programmes rather than shows. Fayenatic london, who was one of the supporters in the by country CfD, also suggested that it be reopened and reversed. So here we are. Paul_012 (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mount St. Mary's College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename (
WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: In 2015, this school's name changed to say "University" instead of "College", so this category and all subcategories should reflect the new article title of
Mount St. Mary's University (Los Angeles). Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mayors of Herzliya

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, @
    WP:SMALLCAT
    before you start casting aspersions.
So lemme run you through this one:
  1. WP:SMALLCAT
    begins Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members. So the test is whether this cat has a reasonable prospect of expansion.
  2. Herzliya is a smallish but significant place in Israel, notable in recent years as a v wealthy subsurb. As such it gets a lot of media attention ... so its liklely that its mayors would also get coverage.
  3. A quick google for "Mayor of Herzliya" threw up lots of hits, mostly about the current mayor Moshe Fadlon. Clearly notable, and it'd be easy to write a quick stub on him.
  4. A little further research found the category full of other mayors of Herzliya on he.wp, ready for translation
  5. the CfD on Langley, BC seems perverse because it gives little consideration the possibility thav other mayors of Langley would be GNG-notable (note: not automatically noatable). I don't know what conclusion would have been reached if that had been done in Langley, but in Herzliya we clearly do have at least one and possibly several more notable mayors.
  6. So this cat clearly does not meet the
    WP:SMALLCAT
    test of "will never have more than a few members". Sadly you choose to focus on the assessments of other cats of mayors, rather checking the facts of this one ... and your dismissal of the wp.wp pages as irrelevant is plain silly, because they are clear evidence of possible expansion.
So ... please WilliamJE, can you please get beyond this simplistic assssment of "mayors and number of existing articles", and look at what
WP:SMALLCAT. Sure it may be one relevant indicator, but it is not and cannot be determining as you claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Schools of medicine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And also...
*Category:Schools of medicine in Afghanistan‎ to Category:Medical schools in Afghanistan‎
Nominator's rationale: This is probably C2D, but I'm doing a full CfD as it's been standing for a decade. Medical school is by far the more common and natural term, and is used by the main Medical school article. I don't see why "schools of medicine" should be preferred. Paul_012 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_8&oldid=871694631"